5 ms·

The fact that these mandates ignore the fact that past infection also provides immunity is frustrating and makes me question what is behind the mandates themsel

The fact that these mandates ignore the fact that past infection also provides immunity is frustrating and makes me question what is behind the mandates themselves. A valid test showing the antibodies should be allowed in place of an immunization. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/lasting-immunity-found-after-recovery-covid-19 https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/lasting...

tantalor 5y ago
Same reason why folks who got chicken pox as kids don't need the vaccine; we already had it! Edit: If you did have chickenpox, CDC says you don't need the vaccine. > CDC recommends two doses of chickenpox vaccine for children, adolescents, and adults who have never had chickenpox and were never vaccinated. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/varicella/public/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/varicella/public/index.html
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > Same reason why folks who got chicken pox as kids don't need the vaccine; we already had it! Chicken pox is a different disease. It's not the same as COVID-19. There are a lot of questions around natural COVID-19 immunity that people who want to rely on it need to answer if they don't want to get vaccinated (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27987103 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27987103). Then there's the question of why go through so much trouble to avoid something that's easy, cheap, and far more certain.
  - TigeriusKirk 5y ago
    The burden of proof is not on the people who have every reason to believe they have natural immunity. It's entirely on people who want to mandate a medical procedure.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > The burden of proof is not on the people who have every reason to believe they have natural immunity. > It's entirely on people who want to mandate a medical procedure. Nope, not really. While there is quite a high burden of proof on the people who want to mandate a medical procedure, the people who make their own medical claims (such as natural immunity provides equivalent or adequate protection) bear a significant burden of proof as well. Relieving them of that burden is completely impractical, since it would privilege all kinds of spurious claims. The vaccines have proven to be safe and effective. If you want another preventative treatment to be considered equivalent, prove it.
      - TigeriusKirk 5y ago
        Making a claim that matches centuries of experience carries virtually no burden of proof. It's not remotely a "spurious" claim.
        tablespoon 5y ago
        > Making a claim that matches centuries of experience carries virtually no burden of proof. It's not remotely a "spurious" claim. Huh? There are centuries of experience that natural COVID-19 immunity is as consistently effective as one of the current crop of US-approved vaccines?
  - lpqiu3699 5y ago
    At this point I think the proof is already quite clear: [1] https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-medicine/fulltext/S2666-3791(21)00203-2 https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-medicine/fulltext/S2666-37... [2] "The people who are not testing positive in the current outbreak are those who have had COVID-19 previously and recovered. These people account for 9% of Israel’s population but less than 1% of recent infections, according to Kovler’s analysis." source: https://www.deseret.com/platform/amp/coronavirus/2021/7/20/22584134/whats-going-on-in-israels-outbreak-among-vaccinated-people https://www.deseret.com/platform/amp/coronavirus/2021/7/20/2... [3] https://newsroom.clevelandclinic.org/2021/06/09/cleveland-clinic-statement-on-previous-covid-19-infection-research/ https://newsroom.clevelandclinic.org/2021/06/09/cleveland-cl...
makomk 5y ago
Oh yes. I've seen absolutely exasperating articles in the New York Times and I think possibly other places complaining about people who refused to get vaccinated despite having caught Covid, as though that was somehow supposed to make it more worth their while getting vaccinated rather than less...
bshoemaker 5y ago
It's a thought, I suppose, but the science is in on the vaccines. It's not in on the case you're talking about, and given the safety & availability of the vaccine it's an easy call.

tantalor 5y ago

Same reason why folks who got chicken pox as kids don't need the vaccine; we already had it! Edit: If you did have chickenpox, CDC says you don't need the vaccine. > CDC recommends two doses of chickenpox vaccine for children, adolescents, and adults who have never had chickenpox and were never vaccinated. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/varicella/public/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/varicella/public/index.html

tablespoon 5y ago
> Same reason why folks who got chicken pox as kids don't need the vaccine; we already had it! Chicken pox is a different disease. It's not the same as COVID-19. There are a lot of questions around natural COVID-19 immunity that people who want to rely on it need to answer if they don't want to get vaccinated (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27987103 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27987103). Then there's the question of why go through so much trouble to avoid something that's easy, cheap, and far more certain.
- TigeriusKirk 5y ago
  The burden of proof is not on the people who have every reason to believe they have natural immunity. It's entirely on people who want to mandate a medical procedure.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > The burden of proof is not on the people who have every reason to believe they have natural immunity. > It's entirely on people who want to mandate a medical procedure. Nope, not really. While there is quite a high burden of proof on the people who want to mandate a medical procedure, the people who make their own medical claims (such as natural immunity provides equivalent or adequate protection) bear a significant burden of proof as well. Relieving them of that burden is completely impractical, since it would privilege all kinds of spurious claims. The vaccines have proven to be safe and effective. If you want another preventative treatment to be considered equivalent, prove it.
    - TigeriusKirk 5y ago
      Making a claim that matches centuries of experience carries virtually no burden of proof. It's not remotely a "spurious" claim.
      - tablespoon 5y ago
        > Making a claim that matches centuries of experience carries virtually no burden of proof. It's not remotely a "spurious" claim. Huh? There are centuries of experience that natural COVID-19 immunity is as consistently effective as one of the current crop of US-approved vaccines?
- lpqiu3699 5y ago
  At this point I think the proof is already quite clear: [1] https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-medicine/fulltext/S2666-3791(21)00203-2 https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-medicine/fulltext/S2666-37... [2] "The people who are not testing positive in the current outbreak are those who have had COVID-19 previously and recovered. These people account for 9% of Israel’s population but less than 1% of recent infections, according to Kovler’s analysis." source: https://www.deseret.com/platform/amp/coronavirus/2021/7/20/22584134/whats-going-on-in-israels-outbreak-among-vaccinated-people https://www.deseret.com/platform/amp/coronavirus/2021/7/20/2... [3] https://newsroom.clevelandclinic.org/2021/06/09/cleveland-clinic-statement-on-previous-covid-19-infection-research/ https://newsroom.clevelandclinic.org/2021/06/09/cleveland-cl...

makomk 5y ago

Oh yes. I've seen absolutely exasperating articles in the New York Times and I think possibly other places complaining about people who refused to get vaccinated despite having caught Covid, as though that was somehow supposed to make it more worth their while getting vaccinated rather than less...

bshoemaker 5y ago

It's a thought, I suppose, but the science is in on the vaccines. It's not in on the case you're talking about, and given the safety & availability of the vaccine it's an easy call.